<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Unexplained loans scrutinized: AO&#039;s one-sided stance overturned; Assessee prevails with evidence.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82233</link>
    <description>Assessee obtained loans from two corporate entities to purchase properties. AO treated these loans as unexplained cash credits u/s 68, relying solely on third-party statements without conducting independent inquiries or allowing cross-examination, violating natural justice principles. Assessee furnished evidence establishing lenders&#039; identities, transaction genuineness, and creditworthiness during appellate proceedings. CIT(A) examined additional evidence due to AO&#039;s failure to complete remand proceedings. Onus u/s 68 was discharged by assessee, and AO failed to rebut the evidence. ITAT upheld CIT(A)&#039;s order deleting the addition, citing violation of natural justice by AO and assessee&#039;s discharge of onus as per judicial precedents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:39:03 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:39:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=772877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Unexplained loans scrutinized: AO&#039;s one-sided stance overturned; Assessee prevails with evidence.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82233</link>
      <description>Assessee obtained loans from two corporate entities to purchase properties. AO treated these loans as unexplained cash credits u/s 68, relying solely on third-party statements without conducting independent inquiries or allowing cross-examination, violating natural justice principles. Assessee furnished evidence establishing lenders&#039; identities, transaction genuineness, and creditworthiness during appellate proceedings. CIT(A) examined additional evidence due to AO&#039;s failure to complete remand proceedings. Onus u/s 68 was discharged by assessee, and AO failed to rebut the evidence. ITAT upheld CIT(A)&#039;s order deleting the addition, citing violation of natural justice by AO and assessee&#039;s discharge of onus as per judicial precedents.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Oct 2024 08:39:03 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82233</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>